Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 1999_Marine | MD99-01208
Original file (MD99-01208.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-LCpl, USMC
Docket No. MD99-01208

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 990913, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant did not designate a representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 000525. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct-Pattern of misconduct (with administrative discharge board), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

The NDRB did note an administrative error on the original DD Form 214. Block 18, Remarks, should contain the following statement: "CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 86MAY20 UNTIL 90APR11". The original DD Form 214 should be corrected or reissued as appropriate.



PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues

 1. I argued the point that I was drinking at a party thrown by the British Royal Marines, at full knowledge of our units hierarchy. SSGT L_ provided even more alcohol. No one but him attested to me drinking an excessive amount, even those drinking with me. I stated exactly how many beers I drank and it was several hours afterwards when the incident happened. Again SSGT L_ stated how many beers were found at the scene of the accident. It was his vehicle, not mine. He is the one who had the beer in his tent. He had it in his Hummer as well. They left me with the blame for it. He led the Court Martial officers to believe the alcohol in both locations were mine. I am not asking for retribution or reversal of what happened for my punishment. What I am asking for is an Honorable Discharge to further my education. I invested in my future over 13 years ago. I spent my 1 st full term, which is required to get our college money issued to us. It states in the Educational Assistants Program that we must do that. I did. Now after the U.S.M.C. has taken $1200.00 from me, they say I can not get my $10,000 for College because of my separation specifics. I ask you to change it to honorable to allow me the opportunity to better myself, and allow me to receive the rewards of an investment I made in myself years ago.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
VA letter to the Applicant dated Aug 27, 1999 concerning Education Assistance Program.
Copy of DD Form 214 (2 copies)
Copy of DD Form 215

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USMC              860520 - 900411  HON
         Inactive: USMCR(J)                860426 - 860519  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 900412               Date of Discharge: 920228

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 10 17 (Doesn't exclude lost/confinement time)
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 22                          Years Contracted: 2

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 56

 Highest Rank: Cpl

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Proficiency: 4.9 (1)              Conduct: 4.8 (1) (RD and EN marks missing)

Military Decorations: NAM

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: Rifle Expert Badge (2d Award), N&MC Parachutist Insignia, MM, LOA, SSDR (w/Star), COA, NUC, NDSM, SWAM, COM, HSM, JMUC,

Days of Unauthorized Absence: 17

Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL)/Misconduct-Pattern of misconduct (with administrative discharge board), authority: MARCORSEPMAN Par. 6210.3.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

900412:  Reenlisted at HQ&SPT BN, MCB Camp Pendleton, CA for term of 2 years.

910319:  Counseled for deficiencies in performance and conduct [alcohol-related incident, driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol content of .11%]. Advise that driving while intoxicated is a serious offense and will not be tolerated by the command. Necessary corrective actions explained, sources of assistance provided, disciplinary and discharge warning issued
910805:  Summary Court Martial
 Charge I: violation of UCMJ, Article 108 (1 Spec)
Specification: Damaged government property, said damage the sum of about $7000.00 on about 0310, 910713;
Charge II: violation of UCMJ Article 111 (1 Spec)
Specification: did on or about 0310, 910713 operate a vehicle while impaired by alcohol;
Charge III: violation of UCMJ Article 121 (1 Spec)
Specification: did on or about 0310, 910713, wrongfully appropriate HMMV value of $26,000.
Charge IV: violation of UCMJ, Article 134, (1 Spec)
Specification: Drunk and disorderly.
Findings: Charge I - Guilty, Charge II - Guilty, Charge III - Not Guilty, Charge IV - Guilty.
Sentence: CHL for 20 days, 60 days restriction, 45 days hard labor without confinement, and reduction to E-3.
CA: 910812: Only so much of the sentence as provides for the confinement for 20 days and restriction for 20 days is approved and ordered executed.
910813:  Platoon Commander, Maj A.R. K_, statement: "Well documented alcohol abuse problem. Successfully completed Level II Treatment and while on an operational deployment, illegally consumed alcohol & misappropriated a government vehicle and wrecked it. No further potential."
910904:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct as evidenced by the summary court-martial of 5 August 1991 and the adverse page 11 entry of 19 Mar 1991.
910904:  Applicant advised of his rights and having not consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.
910910:  Commanding Officer recommended applicant be discharged for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, with an under other than honorable discharge. The factual basis for this was his court-martial of 5Aug91 and his adverse page 11 entry of 19Mar91.

 911122:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under honorable conditions (general).

920121:  Senior Member, administrative discharge board, forwards Board’s recommendation for discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

920212:  SJA review determined the case sufficient in law and fact.

920213:  GCMCA [II Marine Expeditionary Force] directed the applicant's discharge under honorable conditions (general) by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 920228 under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

 The Board does not upgrade discharges solely for the benefit of the applicant. To permit relief, an error or injustice must be found to have existed during the period of enlistment under review. There was nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide any documentation, to indicate there existed an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion at the time of discharge. There was no rights violation and no basis for relief.

The Board found that the applicant was counseled for an alcohol-related incident prior to his Summary Court-Martial. (He was also pending a DWI charge in Jacksonville, N.C.) At the Summary Court-Martial, the applicant was convicted of violations of UCMJ, Articles 108, 111, and 134. He requested and received an administrative discharge board that found he had committed misconduct. Clearly the applicant had a history of alcohol problems, to include his first enlistment. The applicant’s service did not warrant an honorable discharge. Relief denied.

 The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E). Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent that such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, may be considered by the NDRB. The applicant is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15 years from the date of discharge. Representation at the personal appearance hearing is highly recommended.
Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Paragraph 6210, Misconduct , of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, ( MCO P1900.16D), effective 27 Jun 89 until 17 Aug 95.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.


PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may obtain a copy of DoD Directive 1332.28 by writing to:
                  DA Military Review Boards Agency
                  Management Information and Support Directorate
                  Armed Forces Reading Room
                  Washington, D.C. 20310-1809

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  Washington Navy Yard
                  720 Kennon St SE Rm 309
                  Washington, D.C. 20374-5023     


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00481

    Original file (MD04-00481.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requested the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to general/under honorable conditions. Not appealed.930525: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure and misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. The basis for separation is the Applicant’s “failure of Level III alcohol rehabilitation aftercare program, numerous derogatory counseling...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01109

    Original file (ND04-01109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01109 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040629. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the Applicant’s service was discovered by the NDRB. There I was discharged.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01330

    Original file (ND04-01330.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests a documentary record discharge review. _______________________________________________________________________ In accordance with 32 C.F.R., section 724.166, and SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), paragraph 1.16, The American Legion submits to the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB or Board) the above issue and following statement in supplement to the Applicant’s petition.Review of the available records reflect that this former member maintained satisfactory...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00096

    Original file (ND00-00096.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Age at Entry: 27 Years Contracted: 6 Education Level: 12 AFQT: 93 Highest Rate: ET1 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks): Performance: 3.86 (6) Behavior: 3.53 (6) OTA: 3.83 Military Decorations: None Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NEM, NAM, GCA, NDM Days of Unauthorized Absence: None Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT - Convicted by a civil court for offense(s) occurring...

  • USMC | DRB | 2003_Marine | MD03-01488

    Original file (MD03-01488.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD03-01488 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20030909. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Looking back on my own personal expectations coming out of boot camp I can see where I exaggerated..

  • USMC | DRB | 2001_Marine | MD01-00320

    Original file (MD01-00320.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) also advised that the board first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Two young children, a wife, a job, bills, freedom and alcohol problem all in just a few short years (18yrs-21yrs of age). rd Marine Aircraft Wing] directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct.920529: Counseled concerning the VA Alcohol program, declined to enroll...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004 Marine | MD04-00183

    Original file (MD04-00183.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD04-00183 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031107. So, I leave it in your hands to help me!” Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USMC None HON Inactive: USMCR (J) 870519 - 871116 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00536

    Original file (ND01-00536.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the acknowledgement letter to the applicant, he was informed that the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) first conducts a documentary review prior to any personal appearance hearing. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 Congressman Contact Authorization Letter from Applicant (3pgs) Fax from Congressman J___ A. T____ PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00256

    Original file (ND02-00256.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND02-00256 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 020114, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. STGC L_ publicly stated his personal dislike of me and because of this denied me training that was in my Pipeline contract and offered my billet to other, lesser qualified students. Relief denied.Issue 3: The applicant alleges he was denied training due to the personal dislike of...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00128

    Original file (ND00-00128.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    900412: An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct and misconduct due to commission of serious offense, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions and further recommended that the discharge not be suspended. Accordingly, I concur with the Board's recommendation that ABFAA (Applicant) be...